Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14494/2010 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14494 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
DISTRICT
HEALTH OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SUDHIRKUMAR
ASHOKCHANDRA JOSHI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MAHARSHI PATEL for HL PATEL ADVOCATES
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR MANISH J PATEL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 23/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
RULE.
Mr.Manish Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent
waives service of rule.
Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken-up
for final hearing today.
The
petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing and setting
aside the award of the Labour Court dated 12th December
2007 and also the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in
Misc. Civil Application No.10/2008.
Before
filing the present petition, the petitioner filed Special Civil
Application No.6417/2010 before this Court challenging the award of
the Labour Court dated 12th December 2007. However, it
was brought to the notice of the Court in that petition that the
Misc. Civil Application filed by the petitioner was also rejected on
4th February 2010 and hence, the said petition was
disposed of on 16th June 2010 reserving liberty to the
petitioner to file fresh petition challenging both the orders passed
by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the present petition is filed.
Heard
Mr.Maharshi Patel, the learned advocate appearing for M/s.H.L.Patel
Advocates for the petitioner and Mr.Manish Patel, the learned
advocate appearing for the respondent.
There
is no dispute about the fact that the original award passed by the
Labour Court on 12th December 2007 was an ex-parte award.
It is submitted that the notice was duly served on the petitioner.
However, looking to the illness of the advocate appearing for the
petitioner before the Labour Court, the proper representation could
not be made and hence, the Labour Court was constrained to pass an
ex-parte award. Even the Misc. Civil Application filed by the
petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte award and to decide the
same on merits, was also rejected on 4th February 2010.
While rejecting the Misc. Civil Application, the Labour Court has
observed that, ‘no proper explanation was given for not pursuing the
reference and hence, the said application is rejected’.
Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by
the learned counsels, the Court is of the view that interest of
justice requires fair opportunities to be granted to the parties.
However, looking to the lapses on the part of the petitioner, the
petitioner is required to be saddled with cost while setting aside
the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the
present petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 12th
December 2007 as well as the order dated 4th February
2010 are hereby quashed and set-aside with cost of Rs.10,000=00,
which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within a
period of 30 days from today and the matter is remanded to the
Labour Court to decide it afresh and on merits and after giving
adequate opportunity to both the parties.
The
Labour Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
the writ or from the date of receipt of the certified copy,
whichever is earlier.
It
is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the cost of
Rs.10,000=00 to the respondent, this order would not come into
operation and the orders passed by the Labour Court would be upheld.
Subject
to the above directions and observations, this petition is
accordingly disposed of.
(K.A.Puj,
J.)
/moin
Top